Blog
About

  • Record: found
  • Abstract: found
  • Article: not found

The concept of individualized anatomic anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction.

Knee surgery, sports traumatology, arthroscopy : official journal of the ESSKA

Springer Nature America, Inc

Read this article at

ScienceOpenPublisherPubMed
Bookmark
      There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

      Abstract

      To describe the concept of individualized anatomic anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction.

      Related collections

      Most cited references 33

      • Record: found
      • Abstract: not found
      • Article: not found

      The Cruciate Ligaments of the Knee Joint

        Bookmark
        • Record: found
        • Abstract: found
        • Article: not found

        Graft size and patient age are predictors of early revision after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction with hamstring autograft.

        To evaluate whether decreased hamstring autograft size and decreased patient age are predictors of early graft revision.
          Bookmark
          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Prospective randomized clinical evaluation of conventional single-bundle, anatomic single-bundle, and anatomic double-bundle anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: 281 cases with 3- to 5-year follow-up.

          Three different techniques of anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction--conventional (transtibial) single bundle (CSB), anatomic single bundle (ASB), and anatomic double bundle (ADB)--have been described. To determine if double-bundle reconstruction is needed to restore rotational stability or if anatomic placement of a single bundle can yield similar results. Randomized controlled trial; Level of evidence, 1. From December 2005 to December 2007, 320 patients were prospectively randomized into 3 groups: ADB, ASB, and CSB reconstruction. The average follow-up was 51.15 months (range, 39-63 months). At the final follow-up, 281 patients were available. In all groups, hamstring tendons were used with suspensory fixation on the femoral side and bioabsorbable interference screw fixation on the tibial side. The outcomes were evaluated by an independent blinded observer using the Lysholm score and subjective International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) form. The KT-1000 arthrometer was used to evaluate anteroposterior stability, and the pivot-shift test was used to determine rotational stability. Anatomic single-bundle reconstruction resulted in better anteroposterior and rotational stability than CSB reconstruction (average side-to-side difference for anterior tibial translation was 1.6 mm in the ASB group vs 2.0 mm in the CSB group; P = .002). Negative pivot shift was 66.7% vs 41.7% (P = .003). In other parameters, the differences between groups were not statistically significant. The results of the ADB group were also superior to the ASB group for anteroposterior and rotational stability (average side-to-side difference for anterior tibial translation was 1.2 mm in the ADB group vs 1.6 mm in the ASB group; P = .002). Negative pivot shift was 93.1% vs 66.7%, respectively (P < .001), and range of motion was also significantly different (P = .005). The Lysholm score was 90.9, 91.8, and 93.0 in the CSB, ASB, and ADB groups, respectively. The difference was significant only when we compared ADB and CSB (P = .025). Subjective IKDC scores were 90.2, 90.6, and 92.1 in the CSB, ASB, and ADB groups, respectively. The difference was not significant. Anatomic double-bundle ACL reconstruction is significantly superior to conventional single-bundle ACL reconstruction and better than anatomic single-bundle reconstruction. Anatomic single-bundle reconstruction was superior to conventional single-bundle reconstruction. However, these differences are small and may not be clinically relevant.
            Bookmark

            Author and article information

            Journal
            10.1007/s00167-013-2562-4
            23740328

            Comments

            Comment on this article